Post-Darwinist

This blog provides stories that Denyse O'Leary, a Toronto-based journalist, has found to be of interest, as she covers the growing intelligent design controversy. It supports her book By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg 2004). Does the universe - and do life forms - show evidence of intelligent design? If so, Carl Sagan was wrong and so is Richard Dawkins. Now what?

Enter your search termsSubmit search form

Custom Search

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy, with comments

Darwin's Dilemma presumably references the sudden Cambrian explosion of complex, multicellular life forms, including vertebrates, the creatures most likely to have intelligence, about half a billion years ago. Note how they talk around the problem here. Darwinists have twisted themselves into pretzels trying to explain how this could happen purely by natural selection acting on random mutation. Darwin started the thing off by suggesting that the explanation was that the fossil record was poor. Well, the fossil record is way better now, and it supports him even less. Not what you expected to hear in the Year of Darwin, eh?

Behind the Scenes With Darwin's Dilemma: An Interview With Producer Lad Allen

On this episode of ID the Future Anika Smith interviews Illustra Media producer Lad Allen on the new film out next week, Darwin's Dilemma. As the third film in the intelligent design trilogy from Illustra Media, Darwin's Dilemma represents a capstone for Allen, who traversed the globe to present the story of Darwin's journey to his theory of evolution and the Cambrian Explosion, the nagging problem for Darwin in the fossil record that has become a crisis for evolution today.

Listen in as Lad Allen shares with us what it's like to shoot on location in four continents and work with scientists like Simon Conway Morris and Stephen Meyer.

(Note: The Smithsonian always had a huge problem with the Cambrian explosion because it never supported Darwinism, and their key scientist on the case in the days it first came to public notice attempted to hide the results.)

On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin discusses how trails of microorganisms knock down a favorite Darwinist argument against the Cambrian explosion. Listen in as Luskin explains why Darwinists remain stuck — whether they like it or not — with a very explosive Cambrian explosion that isn't the mere artifact of an imperfect fossil record.

[From Denyse: In my view, the Cambrian explosion knocked Darwinism through a cocked hat, and Darwin himself knew this all too well. But he had good public relations agents then and now. Earnest folk, happy to front an impossible idea if it keeps materialist atheism alive. What's so telling - and damning - is their sheer defensiveness.

3.

An Atheist Discusses the Scientific Merits of Intelligent Design

On this episode of ID the Future, atheist philosopher Bradley Monton defends intelligent design as science, discussing methodological naturalism and the evidential force of ID with Casey Luskin. Listen in as Professor Monton shares how ID-critic Robert Pennock tried to intimidate him.

Bradley J. Monton, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder, is author of the new book, Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Broadview Press, 2009).

I wonder when Bradley Monton will start to get even more real flak for asking key, rude questions about Darwinism, but then he doesn't yet blog at Uncommon Descent either. Hey, Brad, wanna be bad?

No, but seriously, Darwinism - as it exists today - is a tax-supported cult gone rotten. It attracts people like Pennock who have little to offer except policing the views of others, as he attempted to do with Monton, who sensibly repelled him. That's the principle reason that cults eventually implode - no new ideas, just new PR hacks and new thugs. With the "evolutionary psychology" branch, the stink is finally coming to public attention.

Intellectual freedom in Canada: Now the "human rights" industry wants to decide who should be altar servers

Bishop says, "The Tribunal has no authority to place itself as an arbiter of canonical precepts."

By Patrick B. Craine

PETERBOROUGH, Ontario, September 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Bishop of Peterborough, Nicola De Angelis, has written a pastoral letter to the faithful of his diocese addressing a recent complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (OHRT), brought against the bishop and twelve local parishioners. In the letter, which is to be distributed at Sunday Masses this weekend, the bishop strongly redresses the OHRT's encroachment, asserting his authority as bishop of his diocese and the autonomy of the Church from state control over internal Church matters.

This past April, Bishop de Angelis directed St. Michael's pastor, Fr. Allan Hood, to dismiss Jim Corcoran from altar serving at the parish; this came after a letter was submitted to him by 12 parishioners, who were concerned about public scandal because it was known that Corcoran lives with his same-sex partner.

Corcoran, who had originally been asked to serve by Fr. Hood, filed a complaint against the bishop and the twelve parishioners on June 17th, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation. The respondents, including the bishop, were then required to defend themselves to the OHRT through written responses.

In this weekend's letter the bishop writes: "I fail to understand how secular powers and government agencies should think they are in a position to tell the Church that she is wrong in her internal rules and regulations, even though these have directed and shaped the life of the Church during the last 2000 years. However, this is what we face today."

As I have noted before, when government interferes with religion in the name of some generalized "human rights", it always ends up establishing a religion, whether it wishes to or not. In this case, the "human rights" spokesfolks want to establish the United Church's views rather than the Catholic Church's views about who should serve at the altar, and - as with any question about what God is thought to want - I don't see that it is any of the government's business.

A church could decide that all altar servers must ride a skateboard while carrying out their duties. No doubt that discriminates against the wheels-challenged among us. But so? People who don't like it are free to go to another church or to none. Or start their own denomination. That is why we have religious freedom in Canada. Or did. And will again, once we rid ourselves of these professional busybodies who have commandeered a budget for advancing supposed "human rights" - really just a cover for growing government interference in areas formerly protected by our ancient liberties and our constitution.

It would sure be nice if they started paying attention to true human rights issues, such as the oppression or even alleged murder of women who do not conform to the demands of a culture.